| Benefits - essential safety net or invitation to abuse? 11:58 - Sep 19 with 6653 views | saint901 |
There's a report in the Times today claiming that 3.9m people are on sickness benefits in the UK.
That is one in five of the working population in some ares of the country.
Various nuances are identified as possible reasons for the increase in claims. Covid of course gets a mention. Cost of living increases as well on the grounds that some who have not previously bothered to claim, now do so to offset some costs.
It is suggested also that this is a situation which other countries are not experiencing. Again, one possible reason put forward is that the level of unemployment support int he UK is lower than comparable European countries meaning people turn to sickness benefits.
(This is the Times as well so there is a suggestion that this is a problem caused by or made worse by Labour being in power rather than something that has been going on and getting worse under a decade and more of Tory mismanagement.)
Is this a problem we need to solve and how?
|  | | |  |
| Benefits - essential safety net or invitation to abuse? on 14:48 - Sep 23 with 680 views | kentsouthampton |
N/T. [Post edited 23 Sep 14:49]
|  | | |
| Benefits - essential safety net or invitation to abuse? on 14:50 - Sep 23 with 675 views | kentsouthampton |
| Benefits - essential safety net or invitation to abuse? on 11:16 - Sep 23 by Bazza |
Gordon Brown sold our gold when the market was at a low, but as you suggest why do morons like you try to rewrite history? |
There are crypto holders with bigger reserves than we held in gold, another noddy stuck in the past. | | | |
| Benefits - essential safety net or invitation to abuse? on 16:42 - Sep 23 with 606 views | Newdawn2014 |
| Benefits - essential safety net or invitation to abuse? on 21:58 - Sep 19 by Ifonly |
Yes, it's true that Scandinavian countries are reported as being happy. I'm not sure why though, how is that known? Not by looking at the data on suicide rates anyway. They all have higher suicide rates than the UK, so aren't we happier on the objective measures? But OK let's go with it anyway. The problem is that the lessons don't translate to a country like the UK.
I've worked there and I can tell you that those countries are entirely different to the UK and what works there won't necessarily work here. They are all small (the population of Denmark, Finland or Norway is only about 4 times Hampshire's) and very socially cohesive cultures (a fact that is attributed to the historically harsh winters and relatively homogenous populations). As a result they're much happier working for the common good, in contrast to this country which is far more individualistic and "nimby". They are happy to pay taxes because they can see where they're spent, unlike the UK where people don't see how they're spent and don't want them spent on the work-shy and immigrants. It's just a difference in culture that isn't going to change any time soon. What works in Scandinavia doesn't even cross the border to Germany and Holland, let alone here.
But even in Scandinavia, wealth taxes don't work. This is Norway's experience of a wealth tax as reported in the rabid right wing Guardian:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/apr/10/super-rich-abandoning-norway-at-re
So, with less tax coming in from the wealthy, they have to target the middle classes. You obviously don't have a problem with that, but see Southamptonfan's post above for a more typical reaction. As he says, the messages are all wrong and disincentivise saving. A sensible government encourages saving because then it will have less of a problem in future. That's why UK governments have followed that policy for decades.
Meanwhile, just like Southamptonfan, existing pensioners won't think it's fair that they are being punished for working hard and saving after so many years of the government telling them that's what they should do. So they won't comply. Money will indeed be converted to gold and hidden. The more tech savvy pensioners will convert cash to bitcoin instead where it will never be found. The net result is that the state will have to spend enormous sums trying to track the wealth of 40 million people who have come to see the state as their enemy, or very little tax will ever be recovered.
So yes there may well be wealth taxes because they are politically convenient but they won't work and will do more harm than good. There are better and fairer ways of raising taxes. |
good idea re the gold . | | | |
| Benefits - essential safety net or invitation to abuse? on 16:52 - Sep 23 with 601 views | saint901 |
I see the thread has morphed a little into a discussion on virtual wealth vs precious metals.
I am not, never will be, an expert on crypto but I understand the concept to be that the value of the currency is not correlated to any particular economy, industry or anything material that we might traditionally regard as valuable.
IN other words it's based on a fictional world of supply and demand. IN essence a parallel financial world which presumably can be manipulated by crypto providers but otherwise has not connection with - for example - industrial output or the cost of services or retail prices.
If my attempt at a description is anywhere near correct (and I accept it may not be) then I think I'm of an age to consider this risky.
If however I'm wrong, why can the Gov't not create a crypto currency and pay benefits in said currency to whatever level they like? | | | |
| Benefits - essential safety net or invitation to abuse? on 17:00 - Sep 23 with 591 views | kentsouthampton |
| Benefits - essential safety net or invitation to abuse? on 16:52 - Sep 23 by saint901 |
I see the thread has morphed a little into a discussion on virtual wealth vs precious metals.
I am not, never will be, an expert on crypto but I understand the concept to be that the value of the currency is not correlated to any particular economy, industry or anything material that we might traditionally regard as valuable.
IN other words it's based on a fictional world of supply and demand. IN essence a parallel financial world which presumably can be manipulated by crypto providers but otherwise has not connection with - for example - industrial output or the cost of services or retail prices.
If my attempt at a description is anywhere near correct (and I accept it may not be) then I think I'm of an age to consider this risky.
If however I'm wrong, why can the Gov't not create a crypto currency and pay benefits in said currency to whatever level they like? |
They'd like to but the right wing press and reform/tory voters would have an aneurysm. | | | |
| Benefits - essential safety net or invitation to abuse? on 17:51 - Sep 23 with 557 views | Bazza |
| Benefits - essential safety net or invitation to abuse? on 14:50 - Sep 23 by kentsouthampton |
There are crypto holders with bigger reserves than we held in gold, another noddy stuck in the past. |
Certainly not true at the time and so irrelevant.You are the one trying to laud Brown So you are wrong again I’m afraid. | | | |
| Benefits - essential safety net or invitation to abuse? on 17:52 - Sep 23 with 555 views | 1885_SFC |
| Benefits - essential safety net or invitation to abuse? on 17:00 - Sep 23 by kentsouthampton |
They'd like to but the right wing press and reform/tory voters would have an aneurysm. |
Serious question : how much, in centimetres, of your tongue do you think you could thrust up Kier Starmer's ringpiece? |  |
| |
| Benefits - essential safety net or invitation to abuse? on 17:54 - Sep 23 with 552 views | Ifonly |
| Benefits - essential safety net or invitation to abuse? on 16:52 - Sep 23 by saint901 |
I see the thread has morphed a little into a discussion on virtual wealth vs precious metals.
I am not, never will be, an expert on crypto but I understand the concept to be that the value of the currency is not correlated to any particular economy, industry or anything material that we might traditionally regard as valuable.
IN other words it's based on a fictional world of supply and demand. IN essence a parallel financial world which presumably can be manipulated by crypto providers but otherwise has not connection with - for example - industrial output or the cost of services or retail prices.
If my attempt at a description is anywhere near correct (and I accept it may not be) then I think I'm of an age to consider this risky.
If however I'm wrong, why can the Gov't not create a crypto currency and pay benefits in said currency to whatever level they like? |
Bitcoin, for example, has value because it is widely accepted as a "means of exchange" (money) and "store of value" (digital gold), similar to what gold was in prior centuries. Some of this acceptance may have a dubious origin (it is untraceable so is widely used in criminal activity and the black economy) but the fact remains that it is widely accepted and so has value. It's value is also underpinned by other factors e.g. there is only a certain amount will ever be "mined" (produced) so it is "scarce" and the fact that it can't be manipulated or forged due to the "blockchain" technology.
A Govt could create its own crypto as you outline, but the economics of what you describe would be very different to bitcoin. Creating an endless supply of currency (to pay benefits in) is very different to the limited supply of bitcoin, so it would lose any value it had. It would also struggle to gain the acceptance of bitcoin because part of the attraction of bitcoin is that no government can trace it.
However, many countries are considering introducing "Central Bank Digital Currencies" which are crypto versions of their national currencies and about 10 already exist. The value is fixed to the same as their national currency and a digital £ would be worth the same as a £ coin. For the UK, a decision might happen in 2025:
https://news.sky.com/story/britcoin-digital-pound-decision-to-be-made-by-2025-12 | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Benefits - essential safety net or invitation to abuse? on 22:49 - Sep 23 with 476 views | kentsouthampton |
| Benefits - essential safety net or invitation to abuse? on 17:52 - Sep 23 by 1885_SFC |
Serious question : how much, in centimetres, of your tongue do you think you could thrust up Kier Starmer's ringpiece? |
I'm not a Labour supporter noddy. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
